DBMS > Atos Standard Common Repository vs. DataFS vs. Ehcache vs. LevelDB

System Properties Comparison Atos Standard Common Repository vs. DataFS vs. Ehcache vs. LevelDB

Please select another system to include it in the comparison.

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

This system has been discontinued and will be removed from the DB-Engines ranking.

Description

Highly scalable database system, designed for managing session and subscriber data in modern mobile communication networks

All data is stored inside objects which are linked by so-called link attributes. Objects consist of classes which can be extended and de-extended at runtime. Graphs can be defined with a struct.

A widely adopted Java cache with tiered storage options

Embeddable fast key-value storage library that provides an ordered mapping from string keys to string values

Primary database model

Document store
Key-value store

Object oriented DBMS

Key-value store

Secondary database models

Graph DBMS

DB-Engines Ranking measures the popularity of database management systems
Trend Chart

Score	0.02
Rank	#369	Overall
	#18	Object oriented DBMS

Score	4.79
Rank	#66	Overall
	#8	Key-value stores

Score	2.33
Rank	#111	Overall
	#19	Key-value stores

Website

atos.net/en/convergence-creators/portfolio/standard-common-repository

newdatabase.com

www.ehcache.org

github.com/google/leveldb

Technical documentation

dev.mobiland.com/Overview.xsp

www.ehcache.org/documentation

github.com/google/leveldb/blob/main/doc/index.md

Developer

Atos Convergence Creators

Mobiland AG

Terracotta Inc, owned by Software AG

Google

Initial release

2016

2018

2009

2011

Current release

1703

1.1.263, October 2022

3.10.0, March 2022

1.23, February 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

Open Source

Apache Version 2; commercial licenses available

Open Source

BSD

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

Providers of DBaaS offerings, please contact us to be listed.

Implementation language

Java

C++

Server operating systems

Linux

Windows

All OS with a Java VM

Illumos
Linux
OS X
Windows

Data scheme

Schema and schema-less with LDAP views

Classes, Structs, and Lists are written in proprietary DataTypeDefinitionLanguage (.dtdl) and Objects consisting of those are written in proprietary DataAccessDefinitionLanguage (.dadl)

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

optional

yes

XML support

Some form of processing data in XML format, e.g. support for XML data structures, and/or support for XPath, XQuery or XSLT.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

APIs and other access methods

LDAP

.NET Client API
Proprietary client DLL
WinRT client

JCache

Supported programming languages

All languages with LDAP bindings

.Net
C
C#
C++
VB.Net

Java

C++
Go
Java

3rd party binding
JavaScript (Node.js)

3rd party binding
Python

3rd party binding

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

Triggers

yes

no, except callback-events from server when changes happened

yes

Cache Event Listeners

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

cell division

Proprietary Sharding system

Sharding

by using Terracotta Server

none

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

by using Terracotta Server

none

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency depending on configuration

Immediate Consistency

Tunable Consistency (Strong, Eventual, Weak)

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

yes

Transaction concepts

Support to ensure data integrity after non-atomic manipulations of data

Atomic execution of specific operations

ACID

yes

supports JTA and can work as an XA resource

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

using a tiered cache-storage approach

yes

with automatic compression on writes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

User concepts

Access control

LDAP bind authentication

Windows-Profile

More information provided by the system vendor

We invite representatives of system vendors to contact us for updating and extending the system information,
and for displaying vendor-provided information such as key customers, competitive advantages and market metrics.

Related products and services

We invite representatives of vendors of related products to contact us for presenting information about their offerings here.

More resources

Recent citations in the news

Jira Data Center user? Here's a critical Ehcache vulnerability to spoil your day
22 July 2021, The Register

Atlassian asks customers to patch critical Jira vulnerability
22 July 2021, BleepingComputer

Critical Jira Flaw in Atlassian Could Lead to RCE
22 July 2021, Threatpost

How to partition Sonatype Nexus Repository: Targets, privileges, and roles
9 February 2010, Sonatype Blog

Implementing fallback with cached data
8 October 2018, O'Reilly Media

provided by Google News

Inside the "Fallguys" malware that steals your browsing data and gaming IMs; continued attack on open source software
2 September 2020, Sonatype Blog

Pliops unveils XDP-Rocks for RocksDB
19 October 2022, Blocks & Files

AMD EPYC vs. Intel Xeon Cascadelake With Facebook's RocksDB Database
17 October 2019, Phoronix

RocksDB - Facebook's Database Now Open Source
21 November 2013, iProgrammer

GIFShell - New Attack Method That Allows Attackers to Steal Data Using Microsoft Teams GIFs
9 September 2022, CybersecurityNews

provided by Google News

Share this page